Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8960 total)
26 online now:
Theodoric (1 member, 25 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,166 Year: 914/23,288 Month: 914/1,851 Week: 37/321 Day: 37/48 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Creationism Science?
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 27 (11342)
06-11-2002 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Joe Meert
06-10-2002 10:29 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Joe Meert:
then how about this question:

when should science quit and attribute the unexplainable to the supernatural?

Cheers

Joe Meert


***A bit of a loaded question Joe. First, science should never quit! But science should learn to deal with the fact that certain things and events, even though supernatural, can be studied scientifically.***

Shalom

Jet

------------------
Please limit signatures to at most a couple hundred characters. --Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Joe Meert, posted 06-10-2002 10:29 AM Joe Meert has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Jeff, posted 06-11-2002 6:41 PM Jet has responded

  
Jeff
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 27 (11354)
06-11-2002 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Jet
06-11-2002 5:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jet:

***A bit of a loaded question Joe. First, science should never quit! But science should learn to deal with the fact that certain things and events, even though supernatural, can be studied scientifically.***

Shalom

Jet


This is marvelous !
I must have asked John Paul this very same question, several hundred times:

How do you recommend we detect, evaluate and verify ANY supernatural phenomena, scientifically ?

Because, unless you can provide an answer to this, we must conclude that science deals with physical, material phenomena….and philosophy or theology deals with the supernatural.
If science is limited ( and it is in this case ) to realm of the physical and the material … then it cannot comment on the supernatural.

Do you watch TV shows with a radio ?
Science can’t detect the supernatural, so why consider it, scientifically ?

Your comments betray an acute ignorance of real science, but you can remedy that.

Science doesn't need to learn that there may be more to reality than the domain of science ( the material, physical universe). Creationists need to learn it...and they need to learn that science is limited from commenting on the supernatural.

jeff

------------------
"Freedom of Religion" equates to Freedom -FROM- those religions we find unbelievable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Jet, posted 06-11-2002 5:23 PM Jet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by John, posted 06-11-2002 10:07 PM Jeff has not yet responded
 Message 19 by Jet, posted 06-12-2002 2:59 PM Jeff has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 27 (11357)
06-11-2002 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Jeff
06-11-2002 6:41 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jeff:

How do you recommend we detect, evaluate and verify ANY supernatural phenomena, scientifically ?

Soon as someone figures this out it'll stop being "super" and turn out to be just plain "natural." At least, so history suggests.

I guess the point is that anything we can investigate is going to find a place in science.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Jeff, posted 06-11-2002 6:41 PM Jeff has not yet responded

  
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 27 (11411)
06-12-2002 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Jeff
06-11-2002 6:41 PM


I think you missed a post or two. You should probably catch up on your reading.

Shalom

Jet

------------------
“There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming.”

Professor Paul Davies


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Jeff, posted 06-11-2002 6:41 PM Jeff has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Jeff, posted 06-12-2002 4:16 PM Jet has responded
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 06-12-2002 8:23 PM Jet has not yet responded

  
Jeff
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 27 (11416)
06-12-2002 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Jet
06-12-2002 2:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
I think you missed a post or two. You should probably catch up on your reading.

Shalom

Jet


Indulge me, please, I’m not very smart…or educated. It was you who advised:

[b] [QUOTE]
Originally posted by Jet:
“…science should learn to deal with the fact that certain things and events, even though supernatural, can be studied scientifically.”
[/b][/QUOTE]

Enlighten us all and reveal the secret to detecting the supernatural and using science to evaluate it.

You wouldn’t hoodwink us by offering bogus advice, now would you ? Then make good your recommendation that science study the supernatural.

How should we do that, exactly ?

jeff

BTW- which posts do you suggest I catch up on ? I will try to read them.

------------------
"Freedom of Religion" equates to Freedom -FROM- those religions we find unbelievable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Jet, posted 06-12-2002 2:59 PM Jet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Jet, posted 06-13-2002 12:11 PM Jeff has not yet responded
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 06-13-2002 3:20 PM Jeff has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3413 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 21 of 27 (11421)
06-12-2002 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Jet
06-11-2002 5:05 PM


Jet it sounds to me you would be "fond" of SJ Gould's notion of NOMA when considering the Popes' magestirium of 96'. Seems to be that Einstein even said "god" does not play dice. The Pope asked a question that athesists like Will Provine would probably rather follow you then me but ask WHY (about a detail that in my opinion really only needs to know "when" for the POpe asked a good question that was really bothering me as an undergraduate-- If the disconinuty that defintions data support of geneotype and phenotype is not in a "run counter" (Pope's language or functionary's) to the continuum being pursued in chemisty and physics. Problem is that Quantum Mechancis tends to enlarge rather than heal this wound even if all concerned were able to do otherwise.

Do you know of Gould's proposed idea for science and religion he abbreviated NOMA? and does that fit if I may say as JUDGE did of my own amalgam Your "world-veiw". I have opnions I guess but no so-called thing 'world-view' but it seems to be some C/E talk


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Jet, posted 06-11-2002 5:05 PM Jet has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19228
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 22 of 27 (11423)
06-12-2002 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Jet
06-12-2002 2:59 PM


This seems like the best thread in which to address your Paul Davies quote. As I've already said elsewhere, the problem with such quotes is that they are lifted out-of-context. (I know you tried to provide a fuller quote for Jastrow, and that's fine except it's 500 words and you placed it in your signature which is repeated in every post, taking up valuable disk space - we're at 67% of capacity right now, so let's use it wisely.) The quote is provided as if Davies had been asked to sum up his personal philosophy, and it turns out he's an advocate of intelligent design.

But he's not. Here's a rather lengthy excerpt from Davies book The Mind of God where he sums up his views on science and the mysteries of the universe:

I should like to make my own position clear at the outset. As a professional scientist I am fully committed to the scientific method of investigating the world. I believe that science is an immensely powerful procedure for helping us to understand the complex universe in which we live. History has shown that its successes are legion, and scarcely a week passes without some new progress being made. The attraction of the scientific method goes beyond its enormous power and scope, however. There is also its uncompromising honesty. Every new discovery, every theory is required to pass rigorous tests of approval by the scientific community before it is accepted. Of course, in practice, scientists do not always follow the textbook strategies. Sometimes the data are muddled and ambiguous. Sometimes influential scientists sustain dubious theories long after they have been discredited. Occasionally scientists cheat. But these are aberrations. Generally, science leads us in the direction of reliable knowledge.

I have always wanted to believe that science can explain everything, at least in principle. Many nonscientists would deny such a claim resolutely. Most religions demand belief in at least some supernatural events, which are by definition impossible to reconcile with science. I would rather not believe in supernatural events personally. Although I obviously can't prove that they never happen, I see no reason to suppose that they do. My inclination is to assume that the laws of nature are obeyed at all times. But even if one rules out supernatural events, it is still not clear that science could in principle explain everything in the physical universe. There remains that old problem about the end of the explanatory chain. However successful our scientific explanations may be, they always have certain starting assumptions built in. For example, an explanation of some phenomenon in terms of physics presupposes the validity of the laws of physics, which are taken as given. But one can ask where these laws come from in the first place. One could even question the origin of the logic upon which all scientific reasoning is founded. Sooner or later we all have to accept something as given, whether it is God, or logic, or a set of laws, or some other foundation for existence. Thus "ultimate" questions will always lie beyond the scope of empirical science as it is usually defined.

And so we see that Paul Davies is actually committed to science and the scientific method, but is given to philosophical reflections on unanswerable questions.

Now, I can anticipate that your answer will be that you're quoting Paul Davies' very own words, but let me say once again, context is important, and just from the way that paragraph is structured it looked like a setup for a qualifying followup. I don't happen to own a copy of The Cosmic BluePrint, but I was able to find a longer version of your quote, and it comes off a little differently:

The very fact that the universe is creative, and that the laws have permitted complex structures to emerge and develop to the point of consciousness -- in other words, that the universe has organized its own self-awareness -- is for me powerful evidence that there is 'something going on' behind it all. The impression of design is overwhelming. Science may explain all the processes whereby the universe evolves its own destiny, but that still leaves room for there to be a meaning behind existence.

So we see that in the very next sentence, a sentence which all Creationist versions of the quote leave out, Davies once again professes his confidence in science's explanatory power.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Jet, posted 06-12-2002 2:59 PM Jet has not yet responded

  
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 27 (11473)
06-13-2002 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Jeff
06-12-2002 4:16 PM


Like I said, you missed a post or two. Rather than expect me to repeat myself, why don't you try backing up and actually reading through the thread. You will be able to recognize my posts. My name is on them.

Shalom

Jet

------------------
“There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming.”

Professor Paul Davies


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Jeff, posted 06-12-2002 4:16 PM Jeff has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19228
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 24 of 27 (11492)
06-13-2002 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Jeff
06-12-2002 4:16 PM


Hi Jeff,

Jet correctly points out that he has already answered this question (check Message 7), but I've been remiss in clarifying why I defined the supernatural as unobservable. From your post it seems like you might take a similar view.

I define natural as that which is apparent in some way to the five senses. If you can see it, smell it, hear it, taste it or feel it then it must by definition be part of the natural world and therefore is natural. Everything else is supernatural. A bush is part of the natural world. A burning bush is also part of the natural world. A burning bush that isn't consumed is still part of the natural world.

Joe Meert in Message 9 expresses a similar view when he says, "As a scientist, he/she must try to explain it using natural means. If that is not possible, it becomes an anomaly..." In other words, once it's observable it is subject to analytical techniques and fitting into theoretical frameworks, even if inexplicable at the time.

On the other hand, Dr_Taximus_maximus in Message 10 defines supernatural as that which violates natural laws. I have a feeling that me and Joe, while understanding the rationale and accepting that this is fine for laypeople, would maintain that scientists must never resort to the supernatural, and that phenomena violating natural laws must instead be viewed as not-yet-understood natural phenomena. If you didn't do this then each time you uncovered something that disobeyed natural laws you would conclude it was supernatural and so shouldn't be expected to obey natural laws, but that would preclude scientific investigation and eliminate the possibility of shedding light on previously unknown natural phenomena. This is at the heart of Joe's question to Jet concerning when the scientist should abandon natural explanations. It's a rhetorical question because the obvious answer is that science can never abandon the natural.

So what's supernatural? The spiritual! There is no way to observe, measure or quantify the comfort of God's presence or the rapture of accepting the saving grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, it can only be experienced.

And I guess there are other supernatural areas, such as "feeling" that something has happened or is going to happen, or seeing apparitions that aren't there and so forth.

So I'm not really too worried about observable supernatural phenomena. They never seem to happen where there's science going on.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Jeff, posted 06-12-2002 4:16 PM Jeff has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Jeff, posted 06-13-2002 4:26 PM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 27 by Brad McFall, posted 08-09-2002 2:40 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Jeff
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 27 (11502)
06-13-2002 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Percy
06-13-2002 3:20 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
Hi Jeff,

Jet correctly points out that he has already answered this question (check Message 7), but I've been remiss in clarifying why I defined the supernatural as unobservable. From your post it seems like you might take a similar view.


Thanks Percy,

All I needed was the message number referenced. I appreciate the fact that you don't expect me to read every single post on the message board to find out how some people parade nonsense around as science.

[b] [QUOTE]
So what's supernatural? The spiritual! There is no way to observe, measure or quantify the comfort of God's presence or the rapture of accepting the saving grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, it can only be experienced.

And I guess there are other supernatural areas, such as "feeling" that something has happened or is going to happen, or seeing apparitions that aren't there and so forth.

So I'm not really too worried about observable supernatural phenomena. They never seem to happen where there's science going on.

--Percy[/b][/QUOTE]

I would classify 'feelings' or emotions as intangible, rather than strictly supernatural. From a physical, materialistic POV, the 'supernatural' appears to be ignorance shrouded in mythology and descended thru oral traditions.

If so, we can all feel free to add any sort of irrational nonsense to the list of supernatura phenomena.

thnx again,

jeff

------------------
"Freedom of Religion" equates to Freedom -FROM- those religions we find unbelievable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 06-13-2002 3:20 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Jeff
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 27 (11512)
06-13-2002 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Jet
03-15-2002 4:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jet:

... debaters on the evo side do not limit themselves to the scientific arena. They like to claim that they do but exactly the opposite is true. True science is often abandoned to maintain the evolutionist argument. Those who deny this either are not paying attention, or are willing trying to mislead someone.


Examples would be nice. It could be refreshing to actually agree on something.

[b] [QUOTE]
Also, I have long contended that all evolutionists, at least all that I have been exposed to, are indeed creationists. They may or may not be willing to be classified as IDers, but as far as being creationists, there is no doubt. For most, abiogenesis is the creator, and with the acceptance of a creator you are automatically qualified as a creationists.
[/b][/QUOTE]

The difference being, abiogenesis is theorized as a ‘process’ that began with inanimate organic compounds and resulted in metabolizing cells that reproduced. Nothing was created. A process was started.

You may also notice that no one attributes the creation of the universe to abiogenesis either. So you may believe scientists are ‘creationists’ if it gives you comfort. Being merely a belief, you are not required to substantiate it to anyone else’s satisfaction. For that matter, you may pretend scientists are plastic soap dishes who control the weather on Jovian satellites with an electric train.

[b] [QUOTE]
And as to supernatural, you seem to have some neo-understanding of the term. Supernatural events can indeed be observed with the senses. Their observance does not negate the fact that they are supernatural.
[/b][/QUOTE]

Ah….you mean their ‘alleged’ observance.

[b] [QUOTE]
A comet streaking across the sky is not a supernatural event. It is viewed with the eyes, and noted as an observable event. It may be regarded as spectacular, but not supernautral.

However, a comet streaking across the sky, and then by the power of Almighty God, is made to stop in its place, remain motionless for a time, then descend to the earth, resting on the surface of the oceans for a period of time, then again ascending into the outer heavens and then finally made to go backwards along the same course from which it came, this is completely supernatural, even though it also is observable. To somehow claim that this observance is not supernatural but rather is now a "natural" occurance simply because it has been observed, it to have a skewed and erroneous understanding of the term "supernatural" in the extreme sense.
[/b][/QUOTE]

First of all, you didn’t present an example, but a hypothetical – that is unless this said event really WAS observed.
Secondly, why should we pretend an event is supernatural simply because we observe behavior not previously understood ? In your hypothetical, there may be hundreds of rational explanations:

-Extra-terrestrials were playing with a massive yo-yo
-It was home-movie night on the International Space Station and the projector was pointed out the window.
-the entire crowd at an outdoor Rock concert ignored the warnings: “ Do not eat the purple acid ”

An observance is just that: an observance. It isn’t a conclusively supernatural until all rational explanations have been considered and then falsified. Even then – science cannot conclude it was supernatural. It doesn’t have the ability to detect and evaluate anything outside of nature. If you are determined to document verified Supernatural activity, you’ll have to use something other than science to do so. That would be like trying to cut open a hole in the sun with a pair of scissors as you stood on the ground.

If you want to pretend that certain phenomena is supernatural, just because you aren’t interested in rational answers, then you’ve just cheapened the whole concept. I haven’t figured out how Santa Claus can visit every house on earth in the span on a single night. He’d have to reach speeds unattainable by KNOWN flying reindeer….and even if they could go that fast – they'd disintegrate in a nanosecond from the aerodynamic friction.

Yup. That must be supernatural.

[b] [QUOTE]
Were this phenomenom a repeatable occurance with no outside interference from the Almighty, then yes, I would agree it is within the realm of natural.(It would also require a rewrite of the laws of physics).
[/b][/QUOTE]

Or just a new understanding.

[b] [QUOTE]
The very act of intervention by the Almighty, denying and negating the natural laws of time, space, motion, gravity, physics, etc. demands its' classification as a supernatural, ….
[/b][/QUOTE]

What very acts of intervention by the Almighty ?
You mean like my Santa Claus example ? Do you agree that the Almighty and Santa Claus are equally valid, supernatural entities ? What about Elvis ?
You speak as if acts of divine intervention have been documented, fully verified and enjoy universal agreement in the scientific community. You can’t use ancient sacred text to substantiate an ‘alleged’ supernatural event in the past. These texts were written by ignorant men, no matter their inspiration.

Yeah, I may not understand the supernatural, but you’re foundering on reality.

[b] [QUOTE]
…though observable, event. When the natural laws are superceded by a supernatural being, that my friend, "IS" completely supernatural, observed or not.
[/b][/QUOTE]

That makes as much sense as “ If it’s supernatural – then it must be supernatural.”
You are implying that such things are real, without bothering to substantiate them.

But what value are meaningless hypotheticals ? We could sit around all day long and “suppose” all sorts of unlikely events. What’s the point ?

-If - something is supernatural, it supercedes nature.

Boy, that’s a BIG if. Big, but virtually worthless as an explanation. What’s the difference between that hypothetical and these:

If things weren’t the same, they’d be different
If my Aunt Martha had a mustache, She’d be my uncle Ralph.

Yes, I suppose it could be true….but so what ? Where is the value of knowing something so meaningless ?
What would it explain ?

Your examples offer nothing to science or to the understanding of alleged supernatural events.

On the other hand, if you were to develop some process by which we might scientifically investigate, evaluate and verify alleged supernatural events – THAT would be something of value.
LOL… but that’s the same as saying: If things weren’t the same, they’d be different

Well, they ARE the same. They aren’t different. Aunt Martha ISN’T Uncle Ralph.

Simply wishing there is a God, or a Santa Claus….or supernatural events doesn’t make them so.
So until there is tangible evidence to suggest there is a supernatural, the only reason to reject science and rational explanations for these unknown events, would be to adhere to a religious agenda.

…and that ain’t science.

jeff

------------------
"Freedom of Religion" equates to Freedom -FROM- those religions we find unbelievable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Jet, posted 03-15-2002 4:10 PM Jet has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3413 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 27 of 27 (15106)
08-09-2002 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Percy
06-13-2002 3:20 PM


In my rather most obtuse biological semantics I found room to refer to something I call "macroscopic unobservable" (for a philosophy I could adhere to between biology and physics for any position on a new analytic chem or older more synthetic chem) but I will not subject you all here to this seemingly accidental understanding of min on water, air, earth and fire etc. Someday it may not be so clear to me that I think it appropriate to get beyond simply criticizing Mayr etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 06-13-2002 3:20 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020